🖨️ Print / Download PDF

Ramphal and Others Vs State of Haryana

Case No: Criminal Revision No. 1193 of 2013 (O and M)

Date of Decision: May 7, 2013

Hon'ble Judges: Paramjeet Singh, J

Bench: Single Bench

Advocate: Bijender Dhankhar, for the Appellant; Sandeep S. Mann, D.A.G., Haryana, for the Respondent

Final Decision: Disposed Off

Translate: English | हिन्दी | தமிழ் | తెలుగు | ಕನ್ನಡ | मराठी

Judgement

Paramjeet Singh, J.@mdashThis revision petition has been preferred by the petitioners against judgment dated 23.3.2013 passed by learned

Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat, thereby dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioners against the judgment of conviction dated 24.5.2011

and order of sentence dated 25.5.2011 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonipat, vide which the petitioners have been

convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- each for commission of offence

punishable u/s 448 IPC, in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month each. I need not dilate upon the facts

of this case in detail as the same have already been recapitulated in the judgment of the learned Courts below and in view of the ultimate prayer of

the petitioners seeking reduction in sentence.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that he is not pressing this revision on merit and is not challenging the conviction on merit. He is only

aggrieved against the sentence part. However, he prays that the sentence of the petitioners be suitably reduced as this criminal trial is hanging on

their head like damocle''s sword for 6 = years and it should be a sufficient mitigating circumstance to treat them leniently. Counsel for the

petitioners has further submitted that the FIR pertains to the year 2006 and since then a period of 6-1/2 years has elapsed. The petitioners have

suffered the ordeal for long period. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contends that the petitioners have already undergone one month and

fourteen days.

4. In view of the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners, which have been noted above, this Court is of the view that no useful

purpose will be served by keeping the petitioners behind the bars further as the petitioners faced ordeal for 6-1/2 years. It is a fit case wherein

sentence awarded to the petitioners can be reduced to already undergone. Ordered accordingly. However, sentence of fine and default clause shall

remain intact. With the observations made above, present revision petition is disposed of with a direction that the petitioner be released

immediately, if not required in any other case.